Mine would be something like, 'When you speak about race issues you ask the public to accept that you're acting in good faith, and not race-baiting or 'playing the racist card'. Yet you surround yourself with candidates and staffers who repeatedly make comments that speak the language of racism and white supremacy. How can we accept your claim of good faith given this wider context?'

“If 30 years of trickle-down economics have failed to trickle sufficiently to raise Maori from the bottom of most socio-economic measurement scales, what do you propose to do to improve their lot while not enacting policies that do more for one particular ethnic group than any other?”

If I could hazard an answer, it’s that ACT basically dislike democracy (see this blog from a Libertarian as to why), believing it to be a means by which the unworthy masses steal from the overclass.

Given that, any subterfuge to gain power is justified, and if that means being in a government with Maori, so be it. (Because if they withdrew confidence and supply, Key would run a serious campaign in Epsom, and ACT would be out of parliament next time. Which would in turn put the kibosh on the plan to merge with National and install Brash as PM a year or so after the election).

Unfortunately, the answer would be "that was not a proper free market" leading to one of the three inevitable answersa) More deregulationb) Get tough on crimec) Don't let the brown people take your stuff (there is overlap between b & c in this mindset)

My question would be something like- Is there any level of empirical evidence that would cause you to change your mind on this? If so, what?

My question would be something like- Is there any level of empirical evidence that would cause you to change your mind on this? If so, what?

Brash has repeatedly claimed that he changed his mind from an orthodox "social democrat" perspective to his later right-leaning views based on empirical evidence he was exposed to during his academic study. So I suspect there's something wrong with his concept of "evidence" in the first place.

Unfortunately, the answer would be "that was not a proper free market" leading to one of the three inevitable answers

That was my thinking, and Graeme's question is still a good one (do you sometimes cross- examine, Graeme?) - you should never ask a question that gives the person a chance to wax lyrical whilst avoiding the question. It's got to be specific. If it leads to arguing with the interviewer, the interviewer has already lost. No one really wants to hear what they have to say.

So, basically, questions about facts.

"Which specific state assets are you most intent on selling, and how much do you want for them?"

ETA If the answer to that is "I don't know" or "We'll be looking at that" then the follow up HAS to be about "so, given that you haven't done the numbers on these sales, why are you really so keen on them?"

My question would be this: Which version of the Treaty of Waitangi are you relying upon when trying to justify your "one law for all" policy? The one in Maori that most chiefs signed, or the English one? And did you also bother to read Articles I and II of the Treaty?

Back in the Orewa day, someone asked him that, and he said he was familiar with both versions, and also the Littlewood one. The latter is a draft or translation discovered in 1992 that nobody actually signed, but which nevertheless gets the Maori Weren't Here First crowd very excited because it fails to promise a few things that the real ones do, and is apparently being Suppressed.

Ansell mentioned it the other day as well, shortly before referring to pre-Maori races. Both are indicators of high-dose conspiracy theory.

Back in the Orewa day, someone asked him that, and he said he was familiar with both versions, and also the Littlewood one. The latter is a draft or translation discovered in 1992 that nobody actually signed, but which nevertheless gets the Maori Weren't Here First crowd very excited because it fails to promise a few things that the real ones do, and is apparently being Suppressed.

I don't understand. Why is a draft that no-one actually signed important? I'd have thought it was irrelevant, except as evidence that the drafters refined their thinking somewhere along the way.

There is good evidence that it's actually a back-translation of the Maori into English. There is, I understand, a line that has rednecks/Martin Doutre et al squeeing, that the land et al is not only for "the chiefs & tribes of New Zealand" but also for "and the people (of New Zealand.)'

Cant go back to the (I think)Treaty History site (thunderstorms in succession one after the boring booming other) - but I do reccommend it-

o, and ANYONE who goes on wittering about pre-Maori people settling here - *without* producing scientific evidence - is from the outer dark, and should remain there. Ross Wiseman, Martin Doutre, Barry Brailsford and too many other ageing Pakeha males - yep, I'm looking at you sadsack phuquewitz-

I don't understand. Why is a draft that no-one actually signed important?

The fact that you find it strange how someone could be legally bound by something they never saw, never signed and in any case couldn’t read just goes to show how much damage the Maori radicals have done to this country.

To what extent is Act’s actual policy stance being shaped by these colourful press releases and controversial ads?

Are you fully in control of this process?

You’ve spoken about radical Maori. But Lindsay Perigo, who has been writing your press releases, has said [insert barking quote here] and [insert barking quote here]. That seems fairly radical. Do you agree with him on that?

If you entered into a contractual arrangement and the other party decided to ignore the clauses in the contract that protected your interests, but still demanded you honour the clauses that protected their interests, would you agree and comply? If not, why not?

And the Littlewood Treaty - it must be a contender for the highest average level of lunacy per item of correspondence to Ministers...